Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	people_n	power_n	4,914	5	5.4287	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50551	Jus regium, or, The just and solid foundations of monarchy in general and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland, maintain'd against Buchannan, Naphtali, Dolman, Milton, &c.	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.	1684 (1684)	Wing M163; ESTC R945	87,343	224

by God but that it is immediatly bestowed by God upon Kings and Refutes Bellarm. de laico c. 6. maintaining That the Jesuits Doctrine in this lessens Authority and raises Factions and contradicts both the Design and Word of God Duvalius de suprem potest Rom. Pontif. p. 1. q. 2. Asserts that Kings derive their Rights by the Laws of God and Nature non ab ipsa Republica hominibus and in all this the Fanaticks and Republicans agree with the Jesuits against Monarchy In the Civil Law this is expresly asserted Cod. de vet Cod. enucleand Deo anctore nostrum gubernante imperium quod nobis a coelesti majestate traditam est Nov. 6. in init Nov. 133. in proem in Nov. 80. 85 86. Justinian acknowledges his Obligation to care for his People because he received the Charge of them from God and certainly Subjects are happier if their Kings acknowledge this as a duty to God than if they only think it a Charge confer'd on them by their People and that they are therefore answerable to them That the Doctors and Commentators are of this opinion is too clear to need Citations vid. Arnis cap. de Essentia Majest Granswinkel de jur Maj cap. 1. 2. As to the Heathens Hesiod in Theog ver 96. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings are from God Homer sayes their Honour is from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iliad 1. verse 197. Themistous asserts that the Regal Power came from God Orat. 5. whith whom agrees Dion Chrysostom Orat. 1. diotog apud Stob. serm c. Plat. de legibus c. But above all Aristotle in polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plutarch Agis Cleom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If to these Statutes and Citations it be answered That God Almighty may indeed be the principal and chief Author of Monarchy and that Monarchs may derive their Power from him as from the Supream Being that directs all more immediate Causes and yet the People may be the immediate Electors of Monarchs and so Kings may derive immediately from them their Power and thus these Statutes are not inconsistent with the principle laid down by Buchannan and others whereby they assert That Kings in general and particularly the Kings of Scotland derive their Power immediately from the People To this my answers are that first If we consider the propriety of the Words there can be nothing more inconsistent then that Kings should derive their Power from God Almighty alone and yet that they should derive it from the People for the Word Alone is of all other words the most exclusive 2dly The design of the Parliament in that acknowledgement was to condemn after a long Rebellion the unhappy Principles which had kindled it and amongst which one of the chief was that our Kings derived their Power from the People and therefore they might qualifie or resume what they at first gave or might oppose all Streaches in the Power they had given and might even punish or depose the King when he transgressed none of which Principles could have been sufficiently condemned by acknowledging that though God was the chief Author yet the People were the immediate Electors 3dly There needed no Act of Parliament be made for acknowledging God to be the chief Author and first Fountain of every Power for that was never controverted amongst Christians 4thly That foolish glosse cannot at all consist with the Inferences deduced from that Principle in the former Statutes for in the 2. Act Par. 1. Char. 2. It is inferr'd from His Majesties holding His Royal Power from God alone that therefore he hath the sole choice of his own Officers of State Privy Counsellors and Judges And in the 5th Act it is inferr'd from the same Principle that because he derives his Power from God alone that therefore it is Treason to rise in Arms without his Consent upon any pretext whatsoever and in the 2 d. Act Par. 3. Char. 2. It is concluded that because our Kings derive their Power from God Almighty alone therefore it is Treason in the People to interrupt or divert their Succession upon any Difference in Religion or other pretext whatsoever whereas all this had been false and improper Reasoning if the design of the Parliament had not been to acknowledge that our Kings derived not their Power from the People for though they derived their Power from God as the supream Being only and not as the immediate bestower and if the People were the immediat bestowers of that Power then the People might still have pretended that they who gave the Power might have risen in their own Defence when they saw the same abused and might have diverted the Succession when it descended upon a person who was an enemy to their Interest but how false this glosse is will appear more fully from the following Arguments and it is absolutely inconsistent with St. Augustins opinion formerly cited wherein he forbids to attribute the giving of Kingdoms to any other but to God My second Argument for proving that Kings derive their Power from God alone and not from the People shall be from the principles of Reason For First The Almighties design being to manifest his Glory in Creating a World so vast and regular as this is and his goodness in Governing it and that Men might live peaceably in it having both Reason and Time to Serve him it was consequential that he should have reserved to himself the immediate dependence of the supream Power to shut out the extravagant and restless multitude from those frequent Revolutions which they would make and Desolations which they would occasion if they thought that the Supream Power depended on them and that they were not bound to obey them for Conscience sake so that those expressions in Scripture were very useful in this to curb our Insolencies and to fix our restlesness and it seems that Kings are in Scripture said to be gods to the end it might be clear that they were not made by Men. 2dly God Almighty being King of Kings it was just that as inferiour Magistrates derived their Power from the King so Kings should derive their Power from God who is their King and this seems to be clear from that analogy which runs in a Dependence and Chain through the whole Creation 3dly as this is most suitable to the principles of Reason so it is most consonant the analogy of Law by which t is declar'd that no Man is master of his own Life or Limbs nemo est Dominus membrorum suorum and therefore as no Man can lawfully take away his own Life so neither can he transfer the power of disposing of it to any other Man and consequently this Power is not derived to Kings and Princes by privat Men but is bestowed upon them by God Almighty who is the sole Arbiter of Life and Death and who can only take it a away because he gave it And if it be objected that this last branch

passions as well as Kings but they are subject to more passions for 1. They who Govern in Common-wealths and Aristocracies have Rivals whom they fear and against whom upon that account they bear Revenge which Kings want 2. They are not so much concerned in those they Govern as Kings the one considering the common Interest as a Tenant does Lands of which he takes his present advantage though he should destroy it the other caring for it as a Proprietor does for his own Ground the one Jading it as a Man does a hired Horse the other using it as a Man does his own 3. The People are ordinarily Governed by those who are the worst of men for these ordinarily can flatter and cheat most and can best use the Hypocrites Vizor Whereas the best Men ordinarily are abstemious modest and love a private Life and were there ever such Villains as those Rebells who Governed us in the last Age And can we deny but our pretenders to Liberty and Property in this Age are the Cheats of the Nation Who to be in Employment hate such as are in it or are such as are discontented for being put out of it or are Bankrupts who resolve to make up their broken Fortunes by it 4. Even good Men when they are raised to Govern grow Insolent of which Princes are not capable for they are still the same and their Passions do not rise because their fortunes do not 5. Kings and Princes know they will be Charged with what they do but the multitude knows that the Publick in general and not any one Man will be blamed and so every private Man thinks himself secure whilst he shifts it over on another or else lessens it by dividing it amongst many 6. The multitude are very subject to Factions most Men scorning to obey their fellow Subjects and when they are in Factions who knows whom to obey and those Factions will again subdivide in new ones and so in infinitum and when either prevails they spare none because their Opposites are Enemies But Kings pity even Rebels remembring that they are their own And I dare say that more were Murthered and Ruined in one year of the last Reforming Age than suffered by the great Turk the Mogol and the King of France in twenty years And more severity was exercised in one year by those Reformers than by all this Race of our Kings these 600 years 7. If it be said That Kings have ill Ministers so have Common-wealths and we observ'd in Scotland that after we had taken from our King the Prerogative of chusing Judges and Counsellors our Parliament did the next year chuse the greatest Block-heads and Idiots in all the Nation whom the Ring-leaders advanced to the end they might Govern all themselves to which Cheat Kings cannot be liable it being their Interest to have able Ministers And whereas Kings have no Interest to prefer one to another yet in Popular Governments every one endeavoures to prefer his own Relations 8. In difficult Cases haste and expedition requires that one should be trusted and even the Romans behoved in great dangers to imploy a Dictator who was accountable to no man for any thing he did 9. There can be no Secrecy in Popular Governments as in Monarchy and what many must know all may 10. Enemies may always get some in popular Governments to side with them and upon specious pretexts to retard all good Designs and when popular men are Debating for shadows the occasion slips away irrecoverably 11. Either Common-wealths imploy no extraordinary persons being ever jealous or if any man become such by great Actions or long Experience he is presently ruined If we consider the severity of Venice against their Nobles and their executing Men without citing or hearing them and that upon meer jealousies we must confess with a wise Spaniard who has collected the arbitrary courses practis'd and allow'd in that State that there is less liberty there than under the worst of Monarchies nor was ever any people so miserable as Rome during their Republick having been ruined in every age with Civil Wars and having had no great man who died not miserably after many false and popular Accusations nor find we amongst the many Grecian Heroes in Cornelius Nepos that two escap'd the peoples fury and did not De Wit find little of that Justice which he magnified in Republicks But whatever may be said against the inconveniences arising from the passions humors insolencies of the Populace in Commonwealths yet much more may be said against the allowing that Prerogative to them under a Monarchy for that were to distract for ever the Government betwixt two contradictory Supream Powers and make the People miserable in not knowing whom to obey when they differ and to make Government which should defend them a gainst a Civil War become the cause of it for how can it be in reason expected but if the People know they can controll the King that ambitious and discontented Ringleaders or ignorant and bigoted Multitudes will be alwayes endeavouring to use this their Prerogative since it seems alwayes glorious and oft-times advantagious to oppose Kings whereas on the other hand Kings cannot but be always jealous of and fear popular Invasions and both these Powers shall like Neighbouring Princes be always endeavouring to gain advantages upon one another and in these Contests shall be spent all the time and pains that should be bestowed in resisting the Common Enemy which cannot but very much lessen the Love which Princes ought to have for their People and the Respect which People ought to have for their Prince and how can it be imagined but that in this case the People shall always groan under greater misfortunes than those which we felt betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol and those which our Neighbours felt in the Contest between the Houses of Lancaster and York All which cannot but appear very probable as well as dreadful to those who consider the late Rebellion wherein the People pretending that the King had violated their Liberties they murder'd and pillag'd all such as were not of their Opinion and after they had ●uin'd their Prince the People divided and fought one against another the greater part pretending they ought to be obeyed because of their numbers and the lesser pretending that they were the sounder part and had the better Cause and it is impossible in such a case to find a Judge of Controversies Which is another unanswerable Argument against the Peoples Supremacy by which all they can gain is an endless Liberty of ruining one another without hope of Redress Nor can Parliaments remedy this for we have seen opposite Parliaments sitting at the same time forfeiting one another whilst the astonished multitude stood at a Gaze not knowing whom to obey and praying that God would Re-establish our lawful Monarchy with which when it was Miraculously Restored they were so overjoy'd as men are when they are freed from the Gallies

restrained by coactive Law Arnisaeus de essentia Majest cap. 3. num 4. By the 25. Act Parl. 15. Ja. 6. The Parliament does acknowledge That it cannot be deny'd but his Majesty is a free Prince of a Soveraign Power having as great Liberties and Prerogatives by the Laws of this Realm and Priviledge of his Crown and Diadem as any other King Prince or Potentate whatsoever And by the 2. Act. Parl. 18. Ja. 6. The Parliament consenting to his Majesties restoring of Bishops declare and acknowledge the absoluteness of our Monarchy in these words The remedy whereof properly belongs to his Majesty whom the whole Estates of their bounden duty with most hearty and faithful affection humbly and truly acknowledge to be a Soveraign Monarch absolute Prince Judge and Governour over all Persons Estates and Causes both Spiritual and Temporal within his said Realm And by the first Act of that same Parliament The Estates and whole Body of this present Parliament acknowledge all with one voluntary humble faithful united heart mind and consent his Majesties soveraign Authority Princely Power Royal Prerogative and Priviledge of his Crown over all Persons Estates and Causes whatsoever within his said Kingdom And because no Acts were ever made giving Prerogatives nor even declaring Prerogatives to have been due until some special controversie did require the same so that Possession and not positive Law was the true measure of the Prerogative therefore the Parliament doth in that same Act approve and perpetually confirm all the Royal Prerogatives as absolutely amply and freely in all respects and considerations as ever his Majesty or any of his Royal Predecessors possessed used and exercised the same and they promise that his Majesties Imperial Power which God has so enlarg'd shall never be in any sort impair'd prejudg'd or diminished but rather reverenc'd and augmented as far as possibly they can In the Preface to our Books of Law call'd Regiam Majestatem it is acknowledg'd that the King has no Superiour except the Creator of Heaven and Earth who governs all Forreign Lawyers also such as Lansius de Lege Regia num 49. and others do number the King of Scotland amongst the Absolute Monarchs My second Argument for proving our King to be an absolute Monarch shall be from my former position wherein I hope I have prov'd sufficiently that our Kings derive not their Right from the People for if the King derive not his Power from the People the Monarchy can never be limited by them and consequently it must be an absolute Monarchy for there could be nothing more unjust more unnatural and more insolent then that the People should pretend a Right to limit and restrain that Power which they never gave and the only reason why Buchannan and his Complices do assert our Monarchy to be a qualified and limited Monarchy being th●● the People when they first Elected our Kings did qualifie and restrain their Government This position being false as appears by the absolute Oath and original Constitution above set down which is lessened or qualified by no condition whatsoever therefore the conclusion drawn from it must be false likewise The third Argument shall be deduced from the Nature of Monarchy and in order thereto I lay down as an uncontroverted principle that every thing must be constructed to be perfect in its own Nature and no mixture is presum'd to be in any thing but he who alledges that the thing controverted is added against Nature must prove the same and therefore since Monarchy is that Government whereby a King is Supream the Monarch must be presum'd neither to be oblig'd to Govern by the advice of the Nobility for that were to confound Monarchy with Aristocracie nor by the advice of the People for that were to confound it with Democracie and consequently if Buchannan and others design to prove that our Kings are obliged to Govern by the advice either of the Nobility or People or are subject to be Chastised by them they must prove that our Kings at their first Creation were Elected upon these Conditions the very Essence and Being of Monarchy consisting in its having a Supream and absolute Power Arnisaeus c. 30. Vasquez l. 1. Controv. c. 47. Budaeus in l. princeps Zas ibid. ff de legibus pone enim says Arnisaeus populum in Regem habere aequalem potestatem neutrum pro summo venditari posse When we hear of a Monarch the first notion we have is that he is a Subject to none for to be a Subject and a Monarch are inconsistent but if we hear that his Nobility or People or both may Depose or punish him we necessarily conclude by the Light of Nature that They and not He are the supream Governours Thus we see that in allowing our King to be an absolute Monarch we have only allow'd him to be a Monarch and to have what naturally belongs to him and that by as necessary a consequence for as every Man is presumed to be reasonable because reason is the Essence of Man so is a King presum'd to be absolute except these limitations whereby the Monarchy is restrained could be prov'd by an express Contract 4thly How is it imaginable but that if our Predecessors had Elected our Kings upon any such Conditions but they would have been very careful to have limited the Monarchy and this Contract had with these conditions been recorded whereas on the contrary we find that albeit great care was taken to record the Oath of Allegiance made to the King and to grave the same upon Marble Tables consign'd unto the custody of their Priests as sacred Oracles yet none of all our Historians make the least mention of any limitations in these Oaths or by any other Contract and to this day our Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance are clogged and lessened by no limitations If it be answered that these limitations do arise from the nature of the thing it self there being nothing more unreasonable and contrary to the nature of Government than that a Monarch who was design'd to be a Protector to his People should be allow'd to destroy them To this it is answered That Monarchy by its nature is absolute as has been prov'd and consequently these pretended limitations are against the nature of Monarchy and so arise not ex natura rei nor can there any thing be more extravagant than to assert that that which is contrary to the nature of Monarchy should arise from its nature and it might be with greater reason pretended that because the great design of men in Marriage is to get a Helper that therefore they may repudiate their Wives when they find them unsupportable and that the putting them away in such cases is consistent enough with the nature of their Oath though simple and absolute this cause of Divorce arising from the nature of Marriage it self This is after Vows to make Inquiry and what Vow or Oath could be useful if the giver were to be Judge how

of the Kings of Great Britain since the States of Parliament are only call'd by the King and derive their Authority from him and the Legislative Power is solely in the King the States of Parliament being only Consenters he not they can only make Peace and War and grant Remissions and against him and not them Treason only is committed and the Law Books of both Nations do affirm that the King is Supream and consequently even according to Calvin's Doctrine neither his People nor any of their Representatives can justly oppose and much less punish him I know that Grotius is by the Republicans and the Fanaticks oft-times cited to defend this their Doctrine of opposing Princes but though his Testimony might be justly rejected as being himself born under a Commonwealth yet he is most impudently cited for he lib. 1. cap. 4. does positively lay down as a general and undoubted Rule That Summum imperium tenentibus resisti non potest Those who have the Supream Power cannot lawfully be resisted which Rule he founds upon the Principles of Reason the Authority of Scripture and the Practice of the Primitive Church and though he limits the same thereafter by some exceptions yet it will easily appear that these exceptions extend not at all to our Case For the first relates only to such Kings as have receiv'd their Power with express condition that they may be tryed by other Magistrates The second to such as have voluntarily resign'd their Empire as Charles the 5th did and so the one may be oppos'd because they were only Titular Kings and the other because they left off to be Kings and consequently we are concerned in neither of these Cases The third limitation is only in the Case where he who was truly a King has alienated his Kingdom to Strangers In which Case Grotius does contend That Subjects may refuse to obey because he ceaseth to be their King But as this is not our Case so even in that Case Grotius is very clear that if this alienation be made by an Hereditary Monarch the alienation is null as being done in prejudice of the lawful Successor but he does not at all assert that the Monarch may be thereupon depos'd by his People The fourth relates only to such Kings as from a hatred to their Countrey design its Destruction and utter Ruine but as he confesseth himself Id vix accidere potest in Rege mentis compote and consequently can take only place in a mad Man in which Case all Laws allow the Kingdom to be rul'd by Governours and Administrators in the King's Name if the madness be Natural and a Total depravation of Sence But if by Madness be meant a moral Madness and design to ruin the Kingdom and the Subjects as was and is most impiously pretended against King CHARLES the first and King CHARLES the 2 d the best and most reasonable of Kings then Opposition in such Cases is not at all warranted by Grotius who speaks only of a Physical and Natural Madness for else every thing that displeaseth the people should be call'd Madness and so the exception should not limit but overturn the general rule and should Arm all Subjects to rebel against their Princes and make them the Soveraign Judges in all Cases Which is inconsistent with Grotius's own Doctrine and is excellently refuted by his own Reasons The fifth relates only to Kings who by the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom are ty'd to such and such Conditions so as that if they fail in them they may be oppos'd The sixth relates only to Kingdoms where the Power is equally divided betwixt the King and the Senate The seventh is in case the King was at first invested by the People with express reservation to them to resist in such and such Cases and so is almost the same with the fifth and all these three differ little from the first And with Grotius's good leave they err also in this that they are not properly exceptions from his own rule for the rule being only that Supream Powers cannot be resisted these Powers are not Supream and they needed not be caution'd by an exception since they did not fall under the rule But neither of these Cases extend to us since our King is by the Acts of Parliament formerly cited declared to be Supream over all Persons and in all Causes nor made our Predecessors any such express reservations at the first erection of the Monarchy and consequently by Grotius own positive Doctrine cannot be resisted And so far is Grotius an enemy to such Fanatical Resistance upon the Pretence of Liberty and Religion that num 6. he calls the Authors of those Opinions Time-Servers only And Gronovius a violent Republican and Fanatick taxes him extreamly for it in his Observations upon that fourth Chapter whose Arguments produc'd against Grotius I shall answer amongst the other Objections Gronovius's first Argument why it should be lawful to resist the Supream Magistrate in defence of Religion is because if it be not Lawful for Subjects to Arm themselves for Religion against their Prince it should not be lawful for their Prince by the same rule to defend himself against Turks and Infidels who would endeavour to force him to comply with their Impieties But to this it is answered That Resistance to Superiors is expresly forbid by the Laws of God and Nature as is said but this cannot be extended to Cases where there is no Subjection nor Allegiance and it may be as well argu'd that because one private man may beat another who offers to strike him that therfore a Child may beat his Parent or a Servant his Master or that because I may violently resist a private man who offers to take away my Goods unjustly that therefore I may oppose the Sentence of the Magistrate because I forsooth do not think the same just His second shift is That our Saviour commanded only absolute submission without resistance in the Infancy of the Church when he himself was miraculously to asist his own Servants but this Submission was to end with the Miracles to which it related As to which my answer is 1. That all Commands in Scripture may be so eluded nor is there any Duty more frequently and fully inculcated than this is and that too in the same Chapters amongst other Duties which are to last for ever such as Submission to Parents and Masters and this is founded upon plain reason and conveniency and not upon Miracles 2. This was receiv'd and acknowledged by the Pagans as has been fully prov'd though it cannot be pretended that they rely'd upon any such miraculous assistance 3. It cannot be deny'd but the Fathers of the Primitive Church did recommend and justifie themselves in their Apologies to the Heathen Emperours for bearing patiently when they were able not only to have resisted but to have overthrown their Persecuters as is clear by the Citations out of Tertullian Cyprian Lactantius Augustine and others to be seen in